Part Of Being More Open And Human Is Actually Holding Conversations With Fans

from the we're-all-connected dept

There is a lot that can be said about being open and honest with your fans. Sure those fans can be pushy and complain a lot, but amongst all that, there is a real opportunity to connect with your fans and help them build up greater love and respect for you and your brand. We have seen many cases in which doing so has helped build a stronger following and bring in a lot more revenue in the process.

Despite this strong evidence for the power of being open and honest, there are still some companies that feel the need to avoid talking to the public. Any time a fan asks a question about anything, most often the responses are either silence or some form of "No Comment." When fans hit that kind of brick wall, they feel as if the company doesn't care about them and are less likely to be engaged in the future. Such responses can also lead to further complaints from the community as well as lost sales.

When the complaints reach a certain threshold, then it reaches the ears of those who have a platform in which to speak and reach a large group of listeners. So when a site like Kotaku gets on its soap box to complain about game publishers who will not engage with the community, then you know a lot of people are listening. The whole article is worth the read but I want to highlight a couple of the suggestions that Kotaku gives at the end.

Answer questions. As many as you can. Questions are not your enemy. We're all here because we all love video games.

Don't be afraid to tease games that are coming in the far future. We love teases. And we won't even mind if those games get cancelled, as long as you don't lie or pretend they're not.

Just talk to us. Explain the logic behind your decisions. Help us understand you. Help us relate. Help us empathize.

They have a couple others that are a bit more specific, but these three cut to the heart. Answer questions, don't be afraid to tease, and just talk. All these things are important to fans and potential customers. These are all part of that process in getting people to not just like what you do produce, but like you as a person or a company. How can they like you if you don't engage with them? It is this engagement that promotes the transparency needed to increase sales, too.

On the other hand, by ignoring your fans you lose the power to control the conversation as well. We highlighted a story last year in which Nintendo made a very weak gesture at engaging with fans. Unfortunately, there was no such engagement and the fans took control of the conversation. Since Nintendo failed to control the conversation by being engaged, the fans began to complain about policy decisions they felt were not ideal. By not engaging, Nintendo lost a lot of good will that day. Had Nintendo actually taken the time to answer and ask questions as Kotaku recommends, they would have had a far better promotion at the time.

As more and more companies learn how to be properly engaged with their respective communities, we should see a lot more successes like those we highlight on a regular basis, such as Louis CK, Amanda Palmer and Double Fine. These people have taken the time to really build a relationship with their fans. A relationship that leads to those fans parting with their money to see more art created. Isn't that what is important?

You couldn't be any more reculant (to give information and updates) to an incredibly eager fanbase. Well, maybe you can, but still, this is pretty reculant. I mean. They do have the right not to say anything. But don't you think if they said things and kept people updated on it's progress without spoiling anything, the fanbase would be a lot more happy with Valve as a whole?

Re:

Reddit AMA's (Ask Me Anything) sessions provide some wonderful illustrations about good and bad ways to interact with fans. Woody Harrelson was popular on Reddit until he did an AMA. He was there to plug his upcoming movie. He didn't answer questions that his fans had. Now his name is synonymous with jerk on Reddit. People who have successful AMA's seem to be having fun.

Right here. EA refuses to refund Origin preorder for Command & Conquer: Generals 2. At r/gaming. They "scrapped" the game and refuse to fund money paid for the game. Fuck EA. And what about their fan sites...sued to oblivion.

Re:

Re:

I'm unclear as to what you're asking or implying? Do you feel Mike would be more honest (in your eyes) if he said piracy was good and please, everyone, go and do more pirating?

What do you think he's hiding? The fact that he supports artists he likes by purchasing their music? That's everyone's choice. Anyone can support artists they like. The presumption on the other end, artists have a right to be paid, is the presumption that's wrong.

Or are you still laboring under the mistaken belief that stating that chasing pirates is an unwinnable battle and a complete waste of time is somehow a statement of support for piracy? That anything pointing out the collateral damage of over-aggressive enforcement against file sharing is somehow a GO TEAM PIRATE manifesto?

You're trying to twist a whole lot of nothing into something damning. I don't think you'll ever get there, but keep trying, I guess.

Re:

It doesn't matter what Mike's opinion is of whether or not piracy is okay. The fact is there is piracy. Regardless of the legal/moral implications (which can vary from person-to-person or nation-to-nation) those affected must deal with this reality.

Re: Re:

He's afraid of the potential negative results. He said so in one article, but it was so long ago I have no idea where to look for it.

Yeah, that's obviously the reason. It's hilarious how he stomps his feet and insists he's answered the question, and then gives all kinds of reasons why he won't answer the question, but the one thing he will never, ever do is just answer the question.

C'mon, Mike. Just tell your readers what you actually believe. What kind of a man won't talk about his beliefs? Why so scared?

Re: Re:

He's afraid of the potential negative results. He said so in one article, but it was so long ago I have no idea where to look for it.

Yeah, that's obviously the reason. It's hilarious how he stomps his feet and insists he's answered the question, and then gives all kinds of reasons why he won't answer the question, but the one thing he will never, ever do is just answer the question.

C'mon, Mike. Just tell your readers what you actually believe. What kind of a man won't talk about his beliefs? Why so scared?

Re: Re:

He's afraid of the potential negative results. He said so in one article, but it was so long ago I have no idea where to look for it.

Yeah, that's obviously the reason. It's hilarious how he stomps his feet and insists he's answered the question, and then gives all kinds of reasons why he won't answer the question, but the one thing he will never, ever do is just answer the question.

C'mon, Mike. Just tell your readers what you actually believe. What kind of a man won't talk about his beliefs? Why so scared?

Re: Re:

It doesn't matter what Mike's opinion is of whether or not piracy is okay. The fact is there is piracy. Regardless of the legal/moral implications (which can vary from person-to-person or nation-to-nation) those affected must deal with this reality.

It does matter. It gets to the heart of everything Techdirt and Mike Masnick is about. It's a simple question that he refuses to ever answer. Why won't he be simple, human, and awesome and actually answer the question? What is he hiding? (Like we all don't know already.)

Re: Re:

Conversations with fans, not trolls. I wouldn't expect you to know the difference though.

I read TD everyday. I'm a fan.

I also think it's very, very telling that Masnick refuses to ever talk about what he really believes about piracy, even though this blog is obviously devoted significantly to that topic.

Don't you think it's weird that he refuses to ever discuss his beliefs about piracy, Zach? (I know you'll defend him no matter what, but seriously though I hope you see that he dodges this question no matter what. That should tell you something.)

Re: Re:

The only reason he has identified for his belief that piracy is not OK is that it goes against the wishes of the content creators. I'm trying to understand if that is the ONLY reason he thinks piracy is not OK. He absolutely refuses to say whether it's the only reason or if there are more reasons.

Why won't he talk about it? Don't you think it's beyond strange that the man who has made a living blogging about piracy refuses to engage his readers in a simple and honest discussion about what he really believes about piracy?

Re: Re: Re:

I really should know better, but...

If Mike replied to this very comment, and said openly:

"I do not condone piracy. I think it is morally wrong, and I do not engage in it myself. That being said, I think it is a reality of doing business and smart people will therefore take it into account when planning a business model"

Would you stop asking what is opinion is? Would you stop asking what he's hiding?

Re: Re: Re:

I don't think you fully understand. That particular AC has been badgering/spamming Mike with the same exact question over and over in various other posts. He gives no forethought to the subjects at hand.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I want him to answer the question. If the fact that content creators don't like it is the only reason he thinks it's not OK, then I want him to say that. If there's other reasons why he thinks it's not OK, I want him to say what those reasons are.

Just like Zach says in this article, when given no answer or a "no comment," it's very, very frustrating. Why is it that Mike can't stop talking about piracy, but as soon as you ask him what he personally believes about it, he's gone. He'll stomp his feet and throw a hissy fit and insist that he's answered the question, but he won't ever just answer the question.

I just want the answer. I want him to be open and honest about what he truly believes about piracy. I'm tired of the excuses. Always excuses, never just answers.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Mike has been asked this question for years. He refuses to ever talk about his true, personal beliefs about piracy. That tells me he's hiding something and he's ashamed of saying what he actually believes. That's not being open and human. That's not connecting with fans. Why won't he just talk about it?

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Yep, he keeps pulling that quote out (Hi Mike!). And he's been super mean to me too. So what? It's all sleight of hand and distraction. He still hasn't answered the question. Don't take your eye off the ball. I'm a fan, but I also think that Mike is a liar and a manipulator, and that's why he won't talk about what he really believes. If he actually was open and awesome and just gave me an answer, I wouldn't think he was a manipulative liar. Don't confuse the symptom with the cause.

Re:

Oh I think I have a couple of my own ideas about Half-Life 3 if you're open to a few liberties I take in thinking and speculating :-)

The one thing that immediately popped into my head the moment I heard Robert Culp (Voiced Dr. Wallace Breen) had died, "There goes Half-Life 3". I honestly believed they were working on it before his death. This maybe why he stated "There have been some plot twists involved".

Also, Gabe's Newel's health hasn't been revealed all too much, but his case of colitis dampens his abilities to help in the development of Half-Life 3.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Ok, let's see. You ask him the same question for years day after day. You keep asking about his views on piracy even though he gave a VERY balanced answer and had given a clear, well thought out answer which you seem to deem very unsatisfactory because you expect him to answer your way.

All that and you expect him to answer your same fucking question your fucking way. You need to learn to let things go as he did.

Now before you piss me off, I do suggest moving on. Ask anyone who has been on my wrong side (Ilortami or some name like that would know).

Re:

Mike is very good at the "do as I say, not do as I do" way of working things.

It's actually quite funny. Mike appears to have a very busy life as a lobbyist and consultant for groups, but rarely if ever wants to talk about it. Even under direct questioning, he tends to defect. His status and work with various groups is very much out of focus, and he works hard to keep it that way.

His SOPA tour in Washington was the only one he talked much about, and even then, we still have no idea who really footed the bill and who paid for the access to the senators and such.

Mike truly feels that when it comes to piracy, has has answered the question over and again. But his answers generally are sort of sneaky ways to avoid taking a solid stand. He claims not to support piracy or to pirate himself, but at the same time, he treats piracy as an allied force, a free speech issue, and a bunch of other things. Essentially, his direct quote would be "I don't support piracy", yet he supports their right to pirate, their right to thumb their noses at the law, and cheers loudly when they find another way to dodge legal responsiblity for his actions.

You only have to look at the whole Mega thing to see the trend. When the FBI does something, they are bad. When Kim does something, he is great.

Truly, if Mike didn't support piracy, he would support their law breaking.

So then you have to ask yourself why he puts himself in this position. I long ago came to the conclusion that the only way that the "new business models" that Mike pushes will ever look even reasonably good is that you must first fatally wound what he called the "legacy industry". You have to knock the giant down and grind him into the ground before you little ideas will seem tall. It's why, rather than spending all of the time on this site promoting new ideas, and instead Mike spends much of the time working to berate and knock down the "legacy industry" players. He takes the sides of the pirates and law breakers, rather than the sides of the legitimate business men who run companies that make billions of dollars and pay the salaries of so many people, because, well, His ideas don't really work until the giants are dead.

So if you ask Mike a question directly, you are very likely to get a fairly snarky answer. He might answer by telling you he has "already shown that"... or he might call you out and claim you are a nut case, or he might divert things entirely and try to change the subject to something you may have said 6 months or a year ago. He most certainly will not answer the questions directly, nor will he ever give you enough information to fill in the huge gaps between what he says and what he does.

Anyway, as an anonymous poster, just remember that recent changes on this site make you a second class citizen. It's Mike's way of supporting free speech.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

It's called weasel wording.

""I do not condone piracy. I think it is morally wrong, and I do not engage in it myself. That being said, I think it is a reality of doing business and smart people will therefore take it into account when planning a business model""

If he opposed piracy, why all the posts supporting pirates? Why all the sucking up to TPB guys, and running their one side of the story? Why use Torrent Freak as a news source?

See my other comment. What Mike says and what Mike does don't match. It's why critical thinkers keep asking the question, because the answer is not in keeping with his acts.

Imagine if he put this much effort into fighting piracy instead of supporting it and cheering on it's legal squirming?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re:

"You only have to look at the whole Mega thing to see the trend. When the FBI does something, they are bad. When Kim does something, he is great."

So the only reason you disagree with Mike, outside of you being an ignorant fool and nothing but a troll who lives in his own fantasy world in his parent's basement, is because you are under the delusion that everyone agrees with everything you say? I'll be as nice as possible to you but I cannot garuntee a damn thing now that you have done and pissed me off.

You are very very misinformed about the Megaupload case. The FBI's evidence of what the Newzeland court dubbed in mockery of the FBI "The 'Doomsday' device". The FBI directed the Aukland Police to raid the mansion AFTER the server in question had already been taken care of. The FBI believed that there was a program on his localized, not conndcted to the outside world CCTV server that could wipe out a system the size of FaceBook in an instant from any (even Kim Dotcom's two and three year olds) of the phones in the house and by anyone in the house.

You piss me off because you make a blatantly uninformed statement using what you think is English, but is actualy troll.

You're nothing but a troll and you will never hold any water in any of your comments when you act like this.

You have the option to let it go before I get mean on your ass. The choice is yours, I'm offering you an out.

Re: Re: Re:

"It's hilarious how he (1)stomps his feet and insists he's answered the question, and then (2)gives all kinds of reasons why he won't answer the question, but the one thing he will never, ever do is just answer the question."

I sort of think the only reason a game console and handheld companies would be so secretive is to gain notariety by releasing information about their new systems little by little. It creates a buz not knowing all the details , but it does backfire from time to time. The reason why secrecy might backfire is rumors start to fly around.

Case in point, E3 2010. Months before E3 2010, rumors started flying around when Valve Software announced a big surprise. It turns out it was the announcement of Portal 2 and the availibilty of Valve's other titles being availible for the PS3. It was nice, but Gabe Newell had recieved a lot of gaffe for a couple of years.

Nintendo dances this game very very carefully and has practiced it for years. The only thing confirmed about the WiiU have been that a few developers are extremely impressed with it. It's also confirmed that "Aliens: Colonial Marines" the controller acts as the motion tracker.

So the idea I get is that they gain by throwing information little by little.

Re: Re: Re:

"I also think it's very, very telling that Masnick refuses to ever talk about what he really believes about piracy,"

I find it interesting that you have the solid belief that everything he's ever said about piracy on this blog is not what he "really thinks" about it. He's stated his position many times - in literally hundreds of articles and recorded speeches - yet you refuse to believe it. I wonder if you'll ever cite the evidence you have for your accusations?

Re: Re: Re:

"I also think it's very, very telling that Masnick refuses to ever talk about what he really believes about piracy, even though this blog is obviously devoted significantly to that topic."

Wait, what?
It's a central theme of this blog: piracy, we don't condone it, but it exists, and here's how you can turn it to your advantage.
But he refuses to ever talk about what he believes?
Maybe, just maybe, he believes that it exists, he doesn't condone it, but you can turn it to your advantage.

Re:

Seriously, why would he bother having a conversation with you, who plainly, plainly has an axe to grind, and who plainly, plainly will never be satisfied, when he could go and do something more rewarding. Like updating the merch store, or publishing more stories that the rest of us like to read and comment on without dragging it down the same stupid trolling every time.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Astounding doesn't even begin to describe his lack of self-awareness. I found this bit particularly ironic:

"Clearly you don't give a damn about my point of view, and you just want to trade insults.

I won't play that game with you."

This is exactly what Mike has said on numerous occasions to him and he just goes off his rails. (I'm not even going to bother to list all the ad homs, just in this thread, he's directed at Mike because that would further prove the point about how ironic the ACs words are.)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You seem to miss the point. I don't make demands - that is some other AC getting all wonky on it. However, I just point out the seeming contradictions in where he stands on things. Sometimes I think that his says he stands and where his posts appear to make him stand are two different things.

An example would be claiming to be against piracy, but cheering on every legal victory for piracy. It would seem if you think piracy is bad, and probably illegal, that you shouldn't be in the position to celebrate when people thumbs their noses at the law.

It starts there, and never seems to end.

I demand nothing. I just think it would do Mike some good to come clean on these things, as well as his "other" life that again seems to at least to some extent go against his stated views.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Clearly you don't give a damn about my point of view, and you just want to trade insults.

I won't play that game with you."

Yeah, you see you can't say you won't play the insult game and then insult someone. It pretty much undermines your previous stance/point. Oh hey, kind of like what you just said Mike does. Wow. So not only are you not self-aware (as you just proved), you also seem to not understand irony and be a hypocrite in the process.

Kudos to you.

Also, you aren't asking questions that are unpopular. What you are doing is trolling and derailing threads. We and Mike all saw your question the first time. He answered it. If he didn't give an answer that you want or answered incompletely, too bad. Get over it. Obviously he isn't going to respond or will do so when he sees fit. So move the fuck on already. But otherwise, repeating yourself over and over shows the rest of us that you aren't trying to be an adult about anything, you just want attention/Mike to say whatever it is you want to hear him say.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

What questions? All I see are attacks on the character of a person you dislike, based purely on speculation. Have you even gathered any evidence that Mike doesn't think as he claims in his posts, or are you just incapable of understanding that a person can be critical both of piracy and the methods used to attack it by the **AAs?

"A closed mind is a waste, and you sir appear to be a terrible waste indeed."

You say this a lot, yet you never present any logical or reasonable position to discuss. In fact, as we see above, you use any excuse to avoid such discussion.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"An example would be claiming to be against piracy, but cheering on every legal victory for piracy."

If you see it like that, it just goes to show how skewed your point of view is.

I'm sure that Mike, like myself, would be happy to cheer on such "victories" if they didn't cause huge levels of collateral damage to freedom of speech, independent artists, new business models and technology and all sort of other things. He would also support these legal wranglings if the corporations involved had actually attempted to adjust to the realities of the modern marketplace instead of holding on to dated models that depend on realities that no longer exist. Top that off with the fact that these "victories" rarely result in any perceivable reduction in piracy, and you have the clear problems that many here have stated again and again.

In other words, it's perfectly acceptable and possible to be both against the tactics used by the legacy industries thus far while also not approving of or supporting piracy. The position has been stated clearly and concisely on many occasions, and is always open to reasonable discussion. That you seem incapable of recognising this and demand 100% for or against support regardless of the implications says a lot more about you than anybody else.

"It starts there, and never seems to end."

The industry has ignored every positive solution that's presented itself over the last 15 years and have repeated made the same mistakes over and over, with both damaging effects on their own businesses and no real effect on piracy. Perhaps it would end if they learned from their mistakes rather than trying the same things again with greater damage to innocent parties? For example, I'm still waiting for legal access to a large number of services, yet the only response we see from the industry is to attack those who offer it instead. If they bothered offering legal services first, perhaps I would be more forgiving of their attempts to shut down sites that do nothing but link to those who can provide it instead?

"I just think it would do Mike some good to come clean on these things"

Do you have any evidence that he has anything to "come clean" about, or are your faulty assumptions all you have to go on? You really don't seem to graps the positions he's clearly stated, let alone whatever positions exist in your own imagination.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Clearly you don't give a damn about my point of view, and you just want to trade insults."

You will find that I find it hard to respect any opinion or point of view that lacks rationale, integrity in thought, blatant ignorance, lack of complete and actual fact, and is uninformed. I only ever insult trolls. You seem to be a type 1 and type 3 troll. (1) Because you're ignorant and won't change your view in spite of factual evidence and loose interest at the littlest of insults. (3) You never shut up.

Now as for my bit about the "insults" I gave "early on", those were facts, not insults.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Here is my response which you refuse to read after I point out you to you:

You are very very misinformed about the Megaupload case. The FBI's evidence of what the Newzeland court dubbed in mockery of the FBI "The 'Doomsday' device". The FBI directed the Aukland Police to raid the mansion AFTER the server in question had already been taken care of. The FBI believed that there was a program on his localized, not conndcted to the outside world CCTV server that could wipe out a system the size of FaceBook in an instant from any (even Kim Dotcom's two and three year olds) of the phones in the house and by anyone in the house.

You piss me off because you make a blatantly uninformed statement using what you think is English, but is actualy troll.

You're nothing but a troll and you will never hold any water in any of your comments when you act like this.

You have the option to let it go before I get mean on your ass. The choice is yours, I'm offering you an out.

There you go. Are you happy now that I answered it your way with insults last?

Can any of the AC Shills explain why they are against Sharing (aka. Piracy) other than that it's 'technically' illegal.... Provide facts and statistics not made up by the industry

Without resorting to the typical industry memes, just at a basic level explain (other than the law, or 'perceived' wrongs) why this is a bad thing. If I have a book and I share it with my friend, there is nothing wrong, but if I have an e-book and I share it with my friend (not using industry approved means) I'm a dirty rotten pirate? It does not compute at a moral level for non corporate shills and those who have not drunk the **AA Kool-aid.